Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Is assuming the suicide bombers in Iraq today were Al Qaeda valid? What sect of Islam is Al Qaeda? Are they Sunni's, and that's why they've attacked the Shiite's on their holy day? Or are they Shiite's and figure who cares, we'll kill our own just to make the US look bad and what? Get the Shiite's to rise up, that doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see the primarily secular "old guard" of Bathist Sunni's having suicide bomber in their ranks to carry these kinds of attacks, but maybe?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Hard to evaluate in terms of our culture.

I'm not an expert on anything in that part of the world, but I have a neighbor who used to be with the CIA there, and a couple of my son's friends have just come back from infantry duty and provided an on-the-ground view. One thing they mentioned was that there's a different view of death there. Dying, especially suicide, is often considered a step to a better world--more strongly, they say, than the standard Christian platitude that the departed have "gone to a better place." Recruiting suicide bombers is easier there than in, say, Malibu.
There's also a tendency toward very strong religious beliefs, more so than most Christians (and maybe most Muslims, too--they're not ALL blowing themselves up). The ex-agent compared it to Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma: His beliefs were SO strong that he thought what he did was a fair trade-off to reach a goal. It seems horrible to us, but they operate under a different system.
One of the soldiers also said that while his outfit hated and feared the suicide bombers, there was an element of admiration, too. It takes guts to strap explosives to yourself, walk into a crowd and set them off. Most of us don't believe in anything that strongly, and aren't willing to make that sacrifice for things we do believe in. And as a tactic, it makes things very hard at least for the short term. People may eventually turn against the bombers, but it sure gets their attention, and when the Americans start strip-searching people or turning them away from places they want to go, it reinforces the image of us as oppressors. A private first class and a Spec 4 don't really have much of a window into the big picture, but they pointed out some things I haven't seen on Fox News.
 

·
Banned forever.....or not
Joined
·
24,421 Posts
None of the above

What better way, to stir up trouble, than to blow up some people at the end of a religious festival. If you get both sides shooting at each other, doesn't it make it pretty hard on the US troops. Who ever did this, wanted all hell to break loose.
This is the same sort of thing that happens in India. Some troublemakers blow up some Hindu's and then just sit back and let the fireworks go off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Arabs killing Arabs

Dwayne Barry said:
Is assuming the suicide bombers in Iraq today were Al Qaeda valid? What sect of Islam is Al Qaeda? Are they Sunni's, and that's why they've attacked the Shiite's on their holy day? Or are they Shiite's and figure who cares, we'll kill our own just to make the US look bad and what? Get the Shiite's to rise up, that doesn't seem to make sense. I don't see the primarily secular "old guard" of Bathist Sunni's having suicide bomber in their ranks to carry these kinds of attacks, but maybe?
could be the beginning of the end this civilization. Great.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
It doesn't matter to Al Queda. Only ...

anarchy and chaos matter. These two components keep them relevant. Without them, people will realize they have no noble cause and find they are just murderous thugs. This type of attack was spelled out in the letter that intelligence officials intercepted from an Al Queda operative in Iraq, a week or two ago.

 

·
Every little counts...
Joined
·
3,924 Posts
Could be, but could also be internal to Sunnis

Live Steam said:
This type of attack was spelled out in the letter that intelligence officials intercepted from an Al Queda operative in Iraq, a week or two ago.
"But I myself believe that this is not to do with Osama bin Laden or loyalists to Saddam Hussein. There is a struggle going on in the Shia community between secularist and religious wings about the extent to which the constitution should be Islamic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3525957.stm


You've got to say one thing about Saddam, he kept a lid on all of this!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
Oh yeah, he was a real huminitarian, he ...

just killed anyone who looked cross-eyed or thought independently. You've got to be kidding with that remark.

As for the quote, that was but a small part of the article you posted. How 'bout this one and the many that preceded it?
"There must be a mastermind. We are not talking of a group of amateurs. The candidate for this is a well organized group. I believe that al-Qaeda or a group associated with it is a good candidate for this action."
One needs to know what Dr. Youssef Choueiri's agenda is, before his perspective is considered. I know nothing about him. What do you know about him?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
"You've got to say one thing about Saddam, he kept a lid on all of this![/QUOTE]

It's been my impression that totalitarian states are usually brutally good at keeping crime and civil unrest to a minimum. That doesn't mean they should be applauded though! It does make the US look particularly bad if these kind of things keep happening.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
First why does it make only the US look bad?

The British are policing Karbala and there are other coalition forces other than US military that have responsibility too. Additionally I think the Iraqi people need to take action against domestic and foreign factions that want to destabilize their country, rather than see it become a prosperous and free state. I agree that the US has a lead roll, but we are not the only country policing Iraq.

Heck if the Democrats didn't politicize this, we may have been able to do a better job of it by putting a larger military presence in country and staying longer to insure a better transition. But from the beginning the Democrats have play a political game with the lives of the Iraqi's and the lives of the coalition forces. They backed the use of force and when it was used, they changed positions for political expediency. At least that's the way I see it :D
 

·
Every little counts...
Joined
·
3,924 Posts
Providing another point of view...

Live Steam said:
One needs to know what Dr. Youssef Choueiri's agenda is, before his perspective is considered. I know nothing about him. What do you know about him?

I wasn't supporting this view, but presenting an additional thesis as to who could be behind this. The original poster alluded to many possibilities, thus I present one.

Now that we're on a roll, I will continue to present alternate ideas:

The coalition official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 15 people were detained in Karbala after the blasts, nine of them in Iraqi custody. The others, being held by coalition forces, included four Farsi speakers thought to be Iranians, the official said.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040303.wiraq0303_2/BNStory/International/

Iranian Shiites, perhaps this could be the Al Queda link, yet I can't find links between Iranian Shiites and Al Queda (predominantly Sunni).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,079 Posts
So basically we are not responsible leaders. What are the Iraqi's supposed to do about it when we are running the country?

Actually, it was your irresponsible leaders who decided to go into Iraq without a large enough force to keep the peace. The Damn Dirty Democrats and a few traitorous Generals warned of this, but Rumsfeld and his pencil-neck, neo-con, cakewalk faithful weren't having any of it.

Why should Democrats continue to support a President's military campaign when he turns around and tars them as weak on defense every time an election rolls around?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Live Steam said:
The British are policing Karbala and there are other coalition forces other than US military that have responsibility too. Additionally I think the Iraqi people need to take action against domestic and foreign factions that want to destabilize their country, rather than see it become a prosperous and free state. I agree that the US has a lead roll, but we are not the only country policing Iraq.

Heck if the Democrats didn't politicize this, we may have been able to do a better job of it by putting a larger military presence in country and staying longer to insure a better transition. But from the beginning the Democrats have play a political game with the lives of the Iraqi's and the lives of the coalition forces. They backed the use of force and when it was used, they changed positions for political expediency. At least that's the way I see it :D
You're right, I should have said the coalition but let's face it, it was our war we just convinced some folks to come along :)

Have the Democrats really limited how many troops we've sent there or how the current adminstration has conducted the war? And many have argued that Bush et al. have played a political game by sending troops there in the first place. I agree the Democrats, or any critical thinking person, should have been opposed to this war in the first place and not switched "sides" once the tide of public opinion shifted. I also hope Bush et al. have figured out how to get us out. Haiti I think is somewhat instructive, it's hard to impose democracy from the top down especially in a highly devisive country. I just never bought the arguement that Iraq was a threat to us, even when everyone thought they had WMDs, especially the way the adminstration made the arguement. It always seemed suspect, at least that's the way I saw it :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I think Haiti and Iraq are two different to compare

The population of Iraq is more highly educated and they have a natural resource that can supply wealth to their nation. Haiti just doesn't have that, so poverty will be much harder to overcome. Poverty is a driving force for unrest.

I didn't see the tide of opinion turn. When did that happen? Last I checked the majority of Americans still support what we did. The Democrats would be hard pressed to gain any ground if they don't make an issue of it, considering the economy looks like it too is in positive motion. I don't believe the war in and of itself will swing any votes, but from the most rabid haters of Bush. The economy will be the key issue. The Democrats have used the war to motivate their base, but it won't win the election for them.

The threat needed to be put into perspective. A proactive approach to terrorism is what this administration has chosen as the course of action. The war has certainly helped us and other countries who face a threat from terrorism, combat it on grounds closer to the source. I don't have a problem with that. The Iraqi people may suffer some because of it, but they were suffering for decades due to the oppressive state they were forced to live under. Nothing worth gaining doesn't come without a price. Unfortunately the freedom of the Iraqi people does have a price. Hopefully they will overcome it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
"The population of Iraq is more highly educated and they have a natural resource that can supply wealth to their nation. Haiti just doesn't have that, so poverty will be much harder to overcome. Poverty is a driving force for unrest."

We can only hope.

"I didn't see the tide of opinion turn. When did that happen? Last I checked the majority of Americans still support what we did."

I didn't say a majority now opposed the war but certainly less people are in favor of it now than were in favor of it initially.

"The Democrats would be hard pressed to gain any ground if they don't make an issue of it, considering the economy looks like it too is in positive motion. I don't believe the war in and of itself will swing any votes, but from the most rabid haters of Bush. The economy will be the key issue. The Democrats have used the war to motivate their base, but it won't win the election for them."

I largely agree, in that it's usually the economy that matter's most. But I won't be voting for Bush because his "right-wing" policies worry me, I think he's mismanaged the war on terrorism by invading Iraq, and frankly his fiscal policies just seem short-sighted, remember when the Repbublicans were the fiscally responsible ones?

"The threat needed to be put into perspective. A proactive approach to terrorism is what this administration has chosen as the course of action. The war has certainly helped us and other countries who face a threat from terrorism, combat it on grounds closer to the source. I don't have a problem with that. The Iraqi people may suffer some because of it, but they were suffering for decades due to the oppressive state they were forced to live under. Nothing worth gaining doesn't come without a price. Unfortunately the freedom of the Iraqi people does have a price. Hopefully they will overcome it."

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but I think when Bush went down the Iraq road he squandered most of the international support we had and could have built on. Furthermore, I think we should realize we will never win a military victory in this war, it is a political victory we must seek by winning over the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Muslims and their governments around the world. Invading a muslim country on suspect grounds doesn't seem like the best way to do that? Of course, you're are right that the invasion has given us a battlefield, so to speak, to take on the terrorists (what was wrong with Afghanistan?). But your last few sentences are disturbing. Of course, freedom may come at a price, etc. etc. but there's a big difference between the US imposing that on a country to further our own policy goals and the people of that country electing to pursue that path themselves.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,685 Posts
I have to run, but I did want to address the last ...

part. I believe the Iraqi people could never have taken on the tremendous task of deposing Saddam. I also believe that if given a vote, the majority would still have desired the US and coalition to do what they did, but that scenario, obviously, could never have happened. I think opponents to this action are shortsighted in their vision. I also believe that Bush's economic strategy needs time to prove whether he is right or wrong. I am on the side that says he's right.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Live Steam said:
part. I believe the Iraqi people could never have taken on the tremendous task of deposing Saddam. I also believe that if given a vote, the majority would still have desired the US and coalition to do what they did, but that scenario, obviously, could never have happened. I think opponents to this action are shortsighted in their vision. I also believe that Bush's economic strategy needs time to prove whether he is right or wrong. I am on the side that says he's right.

I guess I don't have any faith in the US sticking it out (either financially or militarily) in Iraq to see if the long-term goal of a free and democratic Muslim nation is possible. I wouldn't even pretend to know anything about macroeconomics, and I am sceptical about how much a good or bad economy has to do to which party is in power, but it seems like to me that spending more than you got, year in and year out, is the road to ruin and everything Bush has done has decreased the intake and upped the output!
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,453 Posts
Live Steam said:
part. I believe the Iraqi people could never have taken on the tremendous task of deposing Saddam. I also believe that if given a vote, the majority would still have desired the US and coalition to do what they did, but that scenario, obviously, could never have happened. I think opponents to this action are shortsighted in their vision. I also believe that Bush's economic strategy needs time to prove whether he is right or wrong. I am on the side that says he's right.

the iraqi people did that very thing in 1991 after the gulf war. president bush let it be known in no uncertain terms that if the iraqis rose up, they would have the support and backing of the united states. the people rose up, did we support them? no, we turned our backs and let them get slaughtered.

is it any wonder that they might be reluctant to take such steps again in the future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
rufus said:
the iraqi people did that very thing in 1991 after the gulf war. president bush let it be known in no uncertain terms that if the iraqis rose up, they would have the support and backing of the united states. the people rose up, did we support them? no, we turned our backs and let them get slaughtered.

is it any wonder that they might be reluctant to take such steps again in the future?
I certainly hope you're not suggesting that the current war in Iraq is a direct result of a prior policy decision of a Republican? That can't be, all bad that happens now is a direct result of Slick Willie getting a hummer in the oval office, haven't you been paying attention :)
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top